Content-Type: text/html
Radical Leadership and Debate in the Naming of Rape Victims
Radical Leadership and Debate
in the Ethics of Naming Rape Victims
By
Richard J. Riski
Richard J. Riski
The University of Memphis, online
Peninsula College
1502 E. Lauridsen Blvd.
Port Angeles, WA 98362
(360) 417.6469
[log in to unmask]
Media Ethics Division & Burnett Competition
Association for Education in Journalism National Convention 2002
Few things are more polarizing than the ethical decisions surrounding the publication of a rape victim's name. The topic brings into conflict a multitude of compelling principles across journalistic and ethical roundtables. It pits a person's right to privacy against the public's right to know about trial details and the judicial process. It sets into conflict a newspaper's loyalty to accurate, full and unbiased reporting of crimes against a professional code to minimize harm. It sets into conflict the idea that rape is a crime of violence against a societal norm that too often unjustly views rape as a sexual crime whereby the victim is branded with a stigma for life.
The existing status quo for the vast majority of newspapers is to not publish a rape victim's name unless she, or he, wishes to be identified, or other circumstances prevail.[1] Only a handful of publications in the country defy this rule. The Shelton-Mason County Journal, located in Washington State, is one of four newspapers in the nation, which publishes the names of witnesses, including rape victims, in its regular, extensive court coverage. The other three newspapers are dailies located in Connecticut, Iowa and North Carolina. Newspapers have the legal right to publish the names of rape victims from a number of landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings, including Cox v. Cohn and Florida Star v. BJF.[2] These decisions make it difficult for rape victims to win privacy suits against media for identification, because they require the state to show a compelling interest for overriding the First Amendment protection for the publication of truthful information.[3]
Since the legal right is established, the question for every media outlet is how to create ethical grounds for a policy of deciding when-if at all-to name rape victims. A brief history of newspaper practices results in finding that some large newspapers prior to the 1960s did publish rape victims' names with regularity. "Back in my reporting days 20 years ago, we identified rape victims consistently," said Don Pember, a University of Washington journalism professor and media law author. "The general feeling of editors today is not to publish the names, but they clearly have the right to do so,"[4] This practice changed in the 1960s with the Women's and Civil Rights Movements. Then feminist leaders lobbied newspapers and other outlets successfully to stop the practice. In the mid-1980s, several prominent rape cases and events took place that re-focused attention on victim identification. These included the 1984 televised trial of four men accused of gang raping a woman in a New Bed
ford, Massachusetts bar; the Pulitzer prize won by the Des Moines Register for its in-depth story on the rape of a woman who agreed to be identified; and the revelation by NBC and the New York Times of the plaintiff's name in the William Kennedy Smith rape case.[5] The Mike Tyson and Smith trials caused controversies when several news organizations named the victims in contradiction to their newsroom policies. Following these events, newspapers and media outlets across the country reassessed their policies for the first time in decades.
This paper explores the ethical positions and debate surrounding the naming of rape victims by placing the arguments of both sides within the frameworks of five principles described as: Aristotle's Golden Mean, Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, Utilitarianism, the Pluralistic Theory of Value and Communitarianism.[6]
The Golden Mean of the Great Age of Greece is understood as taking nothing to excess in pursuit of a good life of virtue.[7] Aristotle's virtues include courage, good temper, friendliness, truthfulness, shame and justice among others.[8] Using reason as a primary tool, a person chooses a course of action along a continuum of choices for a single virtue. In this manner, an individual determines her/his happiness and contentedness. The focus of this ethics model is on the individual.
The focus of Kant's ethics model is the actions of a person guided by reason.[9] Every person has the capability to reason, therefore for Kant, morality is based on a system of categorical imperatives, or principles of reason. These imperatives apply to the individual no matter the society or culture one belongs to. To Kant, every reasoning person has a duty to exercise her/his mind in order to discover what is the right behavior in a given circumstance. The consequences of one's actions are not the ultimate arbiter of its correctness, as much as an action's logical, universal application. Kant's sense of duty requires that people recognize an individual's rights. This duty also derives that moral claims can have greater authority than the overall happiness of many people.[10]
Utilitarianism stands counter to Kant. Utilitarianism holds that the consequences of an act for the community are its highest legacy. "The greatest good for the greatest number"[11] is its credo. John Stuart Mill, son of a philosopher, was the articulate voice to defend and expand its meaning. The individual acts for his own good with an understanding that all will benefit in the aggregate if each person acts with respect for the good of society.
Pluralism is an ethical model that recognizes competing ethical values exist in a world of diverse people. Philosopher William Ross calls the competing values duties.[12] Those duties can be described as fidelity, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, and not injuring others. This dynamic outlook is lauded for recognizing the multiple roles many people carry and for mirroring the challenges many professionals face daily. Pluralism requires the individual discern the difference between prima facie duties and duty proper. Prima facie can be understood as everyday roles we choose to uphold versus duty proper which require special attention for the introduction of novel challenges and circumstances.
Communitarianism is an ethical model that places social justice at the center of its guidelines.[13] It holds that individuals must be aware of the consequences of their actions both within a community and globally, as part of the human condition.[14] With its origins in political theory, communitarianism focuses on the interdependence of people and the dynamic interplay among biological, legal, economic and social systems. Some scholars suggest it is a uniquely applicable framework for evaluating the performance and role of journalists in society. "It mutes the competition among journalistic organizations while amplifying the collective effect that journalists and their organizations have on society and culture."[15]
Discussion of newspaper ethics also necessitates some analysis of the unique role, rights and responsibilities the press carries in American history, in constitutional duties and in society. Special attention is given to the rationale presented by The Shelton-Mason County Journal as the only publication in the country with a decades-long policy of identifying all witnesses who testify in criminal trials, including rape trials. [16] The reasoning behind this practice reveals insights into core journalistic beliefs and the ethical conflicts generated. From most American newsrooms' ethical outlook, The Journal's practice can be regarded as dispassionate and harmful. From an outsider's standpoint, Charles Gay, managing editor of The Journal, who has defended his family's historic policy in the face of economic and public protest, the practice may be regarded as radical leadership.[17]
Six points of significant debate separate those who do-and those who do not-publish victims' names. Their arguments may be encapsulated as: minimizing harm by maximizing privacy; rape as a unique crime; the stigma of rape; publication entices greater regulation; social responsibility and low reporting; and the momentum of the majority.
Minimizing harm by maximizing privacy
One of the primary tenets in the Society of Professional Journalist's Code of Ethics is to minimize harm. It is the second of four directives, just following: "Seek Truth and Report It" and before "Act Independently" and "Be Accountable."[18] Within this portion of the code are specifics concerning the naming of sex victims, including: "Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes." Many publishers and editors of mainstream newspapers follow this code of ethics and this specific advice as gospel. In a 1994 survey of 589 daily newspapers where editors were presented with 14 rape situations, "more than half the editors said they would print the alleged victim's name in only three cases."[19] Those cases were in the instance where the victim was murdered, the victim asked to be identified, and if the person "went public in some way, revealing her identity."[20]
The national reluctance to identify victims is a logical extension of recognizing crime victims as private figures who become involuntary news subjects. By Kant's categorical imperative, a newspaper choosing to protect the victim's privacy would be a charitable act of value that could be applied universally. In general, this is the course of practice for most newspapers in most cases of rape coverage. From a utilitarian standpoint, protecting a victim's privacy can be argued a greater good in the short term. The consequences of protecting privacy are to lessen public scrutiny and subsequent potential suffering of a person who otherwise might receive unwanted attention as well as some degree of social ostracism from family and friends. This act therefore serves the private victim and enhances the public credibility of the newspaper.
In contrast, the utilitarian principle can be applied to argue for publishing a victim's name. Gay and a handful of feminists suggest that while publication may cause some short-term harm, greater goods are yielded in other short-term effects and in long-term results. He argues that the presumption of innocence for an accused rapist is sacrificed when the press willingly protects the alleged witness and victim's identity. A subtle but clear signal is sent to the public in a court story where John Q. Defendant is identified by full name and address but the accuser goes unnamed. The message sent is one of presumed guilt for the defendant and incomplete, if not biased, reporting on the part of the press, according to Gay. Turn it around, he argues, so that every person is named. Then, the public reads a full, fair and detailed court story that informs readers without prejudicing them about the status of the accused and the nature of the crime. It is also a policy that is fair and con
sistent with the practice of the courts. This consistency gives clarity to the reader and enhances credibility for the newspaper.[21] Another positive result of victim identification is the comfort and sympathy given to a victim by a caring, social network that keeps well informed. Attorney and former president of the National Organization for Women, Karen DeCrow, affirms Gay's policy. She argues that rape must be treated like any other violent crime. "We are full citizens, with names. We should not relinquish our names or identities for the misguided protectionism that has always kept us from full citizenship. _As an attorney of many years, I hold sacred the tenet of English common law, a cornerstone of civilized behavior, that the accused be able to confront the accuser in an open and public way. Women will gain nothing by being presented with sacrificial lambs, even unlikely ones like members of the Kennedy family. As we would not be assaulted, we should not be indulged."[22]
In comparing duties within the pluralistic theory of values, justice would call for the naming of both accused and accuser. This serves the paramount duty of veracity as well. Still, putting victim identification into a context of community and relationship values, news editors certainly can argue that beneficence and not injuring others weigh heavily on the side of maximizing privacy when a crime is on the scales.
Communitarian thinking would consider the sum effect of maximizing privacy for victims as it relates to a community and its other institutions, including political, economic, legal, religious, etc. It would emphasize the unique role the media play within these interrelated worlds. As a philosophy of ideals, communitarians could see justice being served if identification and responsible coverage of gender issues results in less biased coverage, sympathy for the victims and long-term reduction of social stigmas. Communitarian thought could also suggest cohesion of community is served best when the weakest and less fortunate are treated with utmost compassion.
Rape as a unique crime & the stigma of rape
In the opinion of Pulitzer-prize winning editor Geneva Overholser: "No crime is more horribly invasive, more brutally intimate. In no crime does the victim risk being blamed, and in so insidious a way: She asked for it; she wanted it. Perhaps worst of all, there's the judgment: She's damaged goods-less desirable, less marriageable."[23] Overholser's award-winning efforts were based on the sensitive coverage of a rape victim. She emphasizes that it's regressive, ugly thinking that brands rape and its victims for life. It is such thinking that creates the stigma.
It is the stigma of rape and the awareness of such by feminist leaders that persuaded newspaper editors to bestow anonymity on most rape victims. This practice though has created a double-edged sword, Overholser said.
Printing the truth, as best it can be ascertained is the first principle of journalism "Going against this rule in the case of rape victims feels to me very much like participating in the onus, the stigma, that I find so unjust," Overholser said.[24] This treatment further begs the important distinction that rape is a crime of violence, not sex, and as such should not be treated differently, according to advocates of victim identification. "Does not our very delicacy in dealing with rape victims subscribe to the idea that rape is a crime of sex rather than the crime of brutal violence that it really is?" Overholser states. Still, she said she would not convert to a pro-publication policy. "It is not for the newspaper editor, eyes fixed on distant virtue, to sacrifice today's unwilling victims," she said. "I am unwilling to sacrifice today's unwilling victims for long-term good. Yet I believe that we will not break down the stigma until more and more women take public stands. I wil
l go on with the general rule, as most newspapers do, despite my dislike of it."[25] The internal conflict, if not contradiction, shown by Overholser's position-don't sacrifice rape victims on the public altar of scrutiny, BUT to erode the stigma, more women need to come forward and speak out publicly-is where she shares common ground with Gay's controversial practice.
This is the flash point of the battle where the principles of ethical application burn brightest and hottest. This is where they determine publication and its real-life consequences. Overholser's articulate and impassioned views distill the views of scholars and editors who acknowledge the damage victim identification can inflict in the short term. She recognizes this and laments society's role in creating the rape stigma and inflicting further damage to a victim. But she also acknowledges a newspaper's positive role in enlightening the public. "Surely, the sour blight of prejudice is best treated by being subjected to strong sunlight."[26] Overholser is bound by Kant's categorical imperative to treat humanity as an end, not as a means to an end. She and thousands of editors stand behind the virtue inherent in anonymity for the rape victim. She also calls for "more and more women [to] take public stands" voluntarily, that is, to fight the stigma. Law professor, political adviser and media critic Susan Estrich also calls for women to stand up and newspapers to shut up. "It is one thing for women to encourage one other to stand up and stand tall. It is another for any news organization to substitute its judgment for the victim's-to decide that selling paper is more important than humiliating this woman or encouraging others to report rapes. _ To those editors who say the stigma is gone I have a list of women whose lives say you are wrong and a pile of newspaper clippings from this week that sadly support them." Estrich wrote her column in response to the Kennedy Smith case and disclosed she formerly worked for Edward Kennedy. "Of course, the alleged rapist has no protection. _But this hardly supports a decision to heap equal humiliation on a woman who is, after all, not under investigation for having committed a felony or to abandon a well-c
onceived policy of encouraging other women to come forward."[27] Estrich is also a rape survivor.
In contrast, Gay acknowledges the dilemma of Overholser, Estrich and many that see identification as a double-edged sword. Still, he chooses a separate path. His choice is the utilitarian who measures the value of action by its contribution to a desired end and what he believes are prima facie benefits. He reflects on his role as managing editor. He speaks frequently of "the principle" and "duty" to report court matters in a full, fair and balanced fashion. He speaks in a low brooding voice about the likely outcome of his involuntary identification and its historical pattern played out over the nearly four decades prior when his father publicly defended the policy.[28] "We are covering a public trial. We are the eyes and ears of the public," he said. "And all we're doing is reflecting the workings of the court. There aren't exceptions made for ugly crimes or types of crimes." Gay said he asks "40-year-old female" critics if they want their daughters to go through the same shame a
s they might be subject to for buying into a stigma "from the Dark Ages." Henry Gay, Charles's father and prime defender of The Journal's publication policy for decades, addressed the stigma in a 1985 column:
From the beginning, a rape case is a trail of male cliches-original sin, jail bait, slice off a cut loaf, asked for it, man trap, damaged goods, poor little thing, pitiful creature and fallen woman. And at the end of the trial is the Big Daddy newspaper editor with his unctuous promise, "Don't worry, little lady. No one will find out from me that you're ruined forever."
We don't believe that rape victims are ruined forever. The term, damaged goods, is repugnant to us. We won't accept the description or the cruel premise on which it is founded. And we cannot understand why family and friends of the victim accept this atrocious, damaging indictment which is the good old boys' ultimate power play against women. _
But if rapists are to be prosecuted and convicted, that unpleasantness [rape trial and its cross-examination] must be endured. It is our contention that if those around the victim stop giving her the impression that she is soiled, damaged, or somehow guilty because she was raped, the trial will be easier to endure. Love, support and understanding from those closest to her are what she needs. And they cannot be given successfully until the taboos and sexist attitudes are slain. _
And that problem is rape and the stigmatization of local women, not news coverage of criminal trials. When an innocent victim of a vicious crime is devastated because of what she fears society will think of her, society has failed her.
In the case of rape, it is time for society to right its wrong.
This column won Gay the 1986 International Society of Weekly Newspaper Editors' Golden Quill Award. It is the position Charles Gay has upheld for nearly two decades, even after the death of his father in 1999. "This is the common argument," Charles asserts, "'maybe in a perfect world print the name, but this society isn't ready yet.' To which I say, 'And when will it be ready if society and the media perpetuate today's attitude?'" according to Gay.[29]
The idea that stigmas can be eradicated in a lifetime seems revolutionary, if not naive. Still, it is argued positively by both the Kantian and the Utilitarian sides of victim identification. Prejudices have eroded and norms have shifted as a result of public dialogue opening up on issues ranging from homosexuality and abortion to AIDS, Overholser said. Major shifts have occurred in the public's attitude toward smoking, drinking and driving and recreational drug use in the past three decades, according to editors and columnists. Gay points to his father's early newspaper coverage of "mentally retarded" adults as groundbreaking in Washington State. "Henry Gay wrote about how the stigma surrounding rape could be changed just as the stigma around the mentally retarded has changed," Charles said. "They used to be hidden away in closets. He saw tremendous changes occur in the 1950s and 60s, and he believed the stigma surrounding rape could be changed.
"But the policy of our journalistic brethren isn't helping any."
Publication entices greater regulation
One reason news editors shy away from victim identification is a concern that coverage of rape has helped motivate legislation restricting access to victim names.[30] More than 50 percent of 589 daily newspaper editors said they believe this to be true. Operating in their own self interests, editors might take a rule utilitarian position that weighs the benefits of victim anonymity to minimize harm and to reduce public anger that fuels restrictive legislation as far superior to tackling the controversies of victim identification.
Gay and legal scholars note that such laws are often open to legal challenge and overturned as unconstitutional. The Journal's pro-identification policies led to the passage of a Washington state law eliminating public and press access to court proceedings and documents in cases involving child sex-crime victims. The law was later overturned in the state Supreme Court.[31]
The public is generally inclined to restrict press freedoms more than favor them. According to a major study of public opinion commissioned in 1990 by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 70 to 90 percent of Americans favor "complete or partial restriction on the press in reporting on _the name of rape victims."[32]
Social responsibility and low reporting
In a frequently cited national study in 1992, "Rape in America, " sponsored by the National Victim Center of Virginia, more than 90 percent of rape victims surveyed said they would be less likely to report the crime if they knew they would be identified by the media.[33] The study reported that 91 percent of surveyed rape victims said they favored privacy laws, which would restrict media access to victim identifications. The report also stated that a strong majority of women favor legislation prohibiting media identification of sex victims' names.
One of the few research studies into the topic gives lower figures for non-reporting, but it still offers valuable insight into how news coverage might affect a subject's willingness to report a crime. The Winston-Salem Journal in North Carolina is the largest daily newspaper to routinely identify sexual assault victims for the past 20 years. The Journal's policy is to report every rape; it identifies both the assailant and the victim, if they're adults, after the arrest is recorded. Rape coverage is similar in amount to a stabbing or a traffic death.[34] The sample size used to form the research is small: 18 respondents from 41 delivered survey forms, but it represents the "largest sample of identified rape victims that has ever been drawn together."[35] From the research, 16 percent of the women said they would not have reported to police if they knew beforehand that they would be identified. On the other hand, 44 percent said identification would not have kept them from pressi
ng charges. The majority of women, 72 percent said they "felt increased embarrassment and a sense of shame because of the publicity."[36] The research attempted to query 185 adults from four years of coverage.
Other research into rape victims and news coverage states that until "society's view of women and rape changes, victims will continue to be harassed or shunned and, as a consequence, probably will be reluctant to report the crime."[37]
Charles Gay contends that while the last part of this statement may sound accurate, his newspaper's research shows exactly the opposite. In a two-part series entitled "Our day in court, Mason County rape reports defy experts' opinions", The Journal analyzed crime reports from the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs "in three of the five years for which complete information is available." It found Mason County "equaled or surpassed the statewide reporting rate for forcible rape in three of the five years for which complete information is available."[38] The Journal's research is featured in a bar chart showing annual rape reports per 10,000 residents from 1988-1991. The results are 5.5 in Mason; 4.8 in Grays Harbor; 4.8 in Clallam and 4.1 in Jefferson. The results include counties surrounding Mason County that comprises the Olympic Peninsula, an isolated rural landmass west of Seattle. The Journal's reporting further states that rape reports increased by 140 percen
t in the year following the 1985 controversy over the Journal's policy. Four sex-offense trials occurred that year, which resulted in picketing, a letter-writing campaign against the newspaper, a threatened advertising boycott and a small spate of subscription cancellations.[39] As a result of these actions, The Journal received national media attention, including KOMO's "Town Meeting," ABC's "Nightline" and The New York Times. If rape victims fear news coverage following reporting, The Journal's experience defies that argument.
Gay is critical of area newspapers and media outlets, which do not cover the courts as comprehensively as The Journal. He speculates that sexual assault reporting is higher in his area because of The Journal's court coverage. "One of the arguments is: 'You ought to have low reporting of rape in your county because you rape victims a second time in your paper.' As a matter of fact, no, reporting is higher here than in neighboring counties. Why? Who Knows? More awareness of the crime because other newspapers ignore the trials?"[40] The Journal's own research has suggested an answer. Reporter Sean Hanlon interviewed psychologist Robert Seidenberg about the seemingly contradictory outcome. Seidenberg said he thinks rape victims may be encouraged to report the crime by reading the accounts of victims who are similar in age and social status.[41]
The impact of low criminal reporting for fear of unwanted publicity has enormous ethical implications. If true, all media reporting names-especially at the stage of arrest-must consider the grave consequences of inhibiting criminal reporting. The effect of lower reporting is severe. Hidden crimes equate to no crimes. The perception that a crime does not exist is unwittingly giving aid and protection to the criminal element and literally endangering the public in the geography of news coverage. No ethical discussion could ultimately approve of such a practice. The research figures of the Winston-Salem Journal are informative but not conclusive, by the researchers' own admission.[42] The Shelton-Mason County Journal's figures are for a relatively short time period and warrant consideration. Still, both observations would argue for more research.
The momentum of the majority
Since the vast majority of newspapers follow a victim non-identification policy for rapes, it sets a national industry standard and-just as critical-an expectation by the reading public. It also means if a media outlet breaks from the norm, the practice becomes a news event itself. This invites public and peer scrutiny into the cause and effects of such deviation and its justification.
How do major newspapers justify going against policies of non-publication? In the Kennedy Smith rape case, NBC broadcast the name and picture of the alleged rape victim. President of NBC News, Michael Gartner sent out a memo of explanation to his staff.[43] He listed a number of reasons, including story credibility, fairness to the accused, and eroding the stereotypes of rape. Gartner's decision was deliberative; it took more than two weeks and involved no less than 30 people in discussion. His process was not unlike Sissela Bok's decision-making framework whereby stakeholders are used to broaden the options and potential consequences of a decision.[44]
Shortly after NBC's broadcast, The New York Times followed suit and identified the alleged victim. Later, The Times apologized for its actions and avoided naming the woman. But several other newspapers followed the Times' lead, including a Florida tabloid. These publications argued that once NBC aired the plaintiff's identity, it was already public. In essence they argued that the cat is out of the bag, and therefore it is common knowledge. That can be attacked logically as pack journalism of the simplest sort and the copycat repetition of two wrongs. Plenty of readers might never know the plaintiff's name without repeated widespread circulation by television or a national publication. And the logistics of dissemination aside, it still begs the question of upholding the principles of an existing ethics policy versus following the lead of a competitor whose actions may be unethical-if not potentially illegal-and driven by no greater cause than sensational hype and its short-term pr
ofit motive.
"We are accused of sensationalism and doing it to sell newspapers," Gay said, looking across to stacks of the staid, seven-column broadsheet strewn around his office. "Even though no one knows it's on page 18 inside and we argue all these details in the context of a trial!" he said.
"So who's doing victims more harm, the newspaper that exposes the problem to light or the ones that either ignore it or perpetuate the stigma by confirming it's shameful to be a witness in a rape trial?"[45]
NBC's decision in the Kennedy Smith case and the subsequent actions of a number of newspapers should be noted for being more than exceptions to the norm. Their actions triggered discussion and thought in newsrooms across the country. These discussions heighten the level of ethical dialogue and potential for industry wide change. This shift in attitudes is more likely to occur when prominent or elite media are the agents of change. Still, the momentum of the vast majority of news agencies sets the standard as non-reporting to minimize victim suffering.
Conclusions
Three things should occur before a newspaper faces the decision to print a rape victim's name and/or create a policy for such. First, the newspaper must recognize the role it plays in its community.[46] This may, and likely will, differ for newspapers, depending on the size, staff, historical background and leadership. Second, the newspaper must decide what its values are and articulate those to itself. This act is a necessary precursor to sharing values with its readership.[47] Third, the newspaper must look to the principles of ethical decision making for guidance in allowing its roles, its defined values and its news judgment to interact in a meaningful, deliberative and intelligent way. This is a modified Potter's Box.[48] From such deliberation, new facts may arise, but certainly a decision and its subsequent action must be born.
The first step of defining its roles requires newspaper leadership practice candor and a willingness to listen to the editorial staff, respected, representative community leadership and honest voices of dissent. A helpful base to begin this discussion is recognizing the roles in which newspapers traditionally interact with other institutions. In American history, the press has embraced its cultural role as the watchdog of authority, or a check on government to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."[49] Other roles include acting as a source of information, entertainment and selling, a "newspaper of record," a mirror of society, a discoverer of truth, a marketplace of ideas, and in the communitarian ideal associated with civic journalism, a harbinger of solutions and alternatives to help society. In this specific area of ethical debate, victim identification requires a newspaper decides how deeply and seriously it will cover crime, court issues, and social ills. Some small newspapers, and even medium ones, look at staffs and budgets and decide they can cover only the biggest cases. Other small newspapers, like the Shelton-Mason County Journal see court coverage as a vital duty in being a newspaper of record.
The second step requires the newspaper leadership decides its values and how these values will be exhibited in the reporting practices and coverage of news stories, possibly feature stories and even opinion pieces. Again The Journal is an extremely small newspaper, but its cultural history was one of defiant independence, even apparently before the leadership of Henry Gay, [50] who took the defense and interpretation of newspaper's stance to a higher, more public level, as has his son, Charles. Medium and large newspapers often do not cover superior courts with the same diligence as The Journal, so as a newspaper of record, it chooses that portion of its duty and loyalties with special care. One reason for that care may be a deep vein of government skepticism that informs the Gay family values. In a short biography of his father, Charles tells the story of how a young Henry ran to a good friend's house only to find the family's meal on the dining table, left behind after the famil
y was taken to a Japanese internment camp. Charles repeats this cautionary tale when explaining thorough court and political reporting. "If you're doing something that erodes presumption of innocence, if you're doing something that erodes the Bill of Rights, I can't live with it as a journalist, " Charles said, "With the laws being passed, we're working our way toward a police state. As a journalist, it's a large part of our responsibility to protect them, not erode them."
While victim identification is a profoundly divisive issue, it may actually generate more heat than light in helping evoke change in societal attitudes and norms. Paramount to even naming victims is how frequently, to what length, and how well are violent sex crimes reported, presented and analyzed. After the Philadelphia Inquirer spent 10 months reassessing its position and revised its policy, editor Maxwell E. P. King stated that "what we write and how much we write has more potential impact in removing the stigma of rape than whether we name [victims]. He went on to specify that the newspaper "will be writing more stories about the issues, such as why a woman would delay reporting, why she would have difficulty testifying, or why it is difficult for a man to defend himself against a rape charge."[51] Incidentally, King's revision came down on anonymity "in all but the most exceptional cases."[52]
The third step requires familiarity with ethical principles and their philosophies. Then the facts of a crime and subsequent court coverage and the newspaper's values can be laid into a matrix of principles for the purpose of weighing morally relevant factors. When this is done in a judicious, deliberate and potentially painstakingly, open fashion, then newspaper leadership can better justify the causes and reasons for action. Newspapers with independent histories that have engaged themselves in the experiment of civic journalism might consider step one as a chance to reassert their place in the community as leaders. This might mean stronger regular coverage of rape stories without names. It might mean more trial coverage with regular identification of victims, or not, depending on circumstances.
The Journal's absolutist position on naming witnesses has scores of critics. Most dwell on the stigma-related issue of causing undue harm. But other concerns focus specifically on naming underage victims and publishing explicit and obscene details. Any absolutist policy can be criticized for unnecessary inflexibility. But critics might suggest this oversimplified form of zealous utilitarianism-in which overwhelmingly female victims are subject to excessive scrutiny by what some deem as journalistic intrusion-goes to the point of "the ends justify the means." In the case of the Winston-Salem Journal, reporting and publication occurs at arrest whereas the Shelton-Mason County Journal's publication policy calls for identification at trial. This difference brings to light issues of criticism and utilitarian trade-offs. Identification at arrest is so early in the judicial process as to value immediate public warning of a potential threat. Identification at trial would mean some, if not many cases, don't reach court due to plea-bargaining and would not be made public or necessarily be reported. Still, cases that do reach trial would bear
the weight of judicial due process and subsequent news coverage. Another argument against any identification is a research finding that the use of names has little, if any effect, on how readers view a rape story or crime.[53] It did not, however, test whether or not names increased the credibility of the newspaper.
The three-step process described is not a magic, formulaic process that should render uniform results. The history, culture and leadership of newspapers can differ so substantively that step one in this suggested model can result in widely disparate outcomes. Like most ethical models, it requires serious, if not discomforting conversations, among stakeholders with a desire to share values, principles, and beliefs before bearing the weight of publication's unique burdens. Cultural values and hierarchical structures within newsrooms are likely barriers to steps one and two getting beyond a single staff meeting. Still, when watershed news cases occur on a national or regional level, bringing trade practices under harsh scrutiny by the public, some blueprint for ethical decision making is helpful, if not essential.
Bibliography
Beccaria, Cesare, Paolucci, Henry (translator). On Crimes and Punishments. 1764.
Black, Jay. "Rethinking the naming of sex crime victims, "Newspaper Research Journal 16,
no. 3 (1995):
Brinton, Crane. A History of Western Morals. Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1959.
Brooks, Kathleen, Begley, Kathleen. "Rape in Print-Victim may twice relive a rape: In the
courts and in the newspaper," Seattle Times, 25 June 1985.
Christians, Clifford, Kim Rotzoll, and Mark Fackler. Good News: Social ethics and the press.
Oxford University Press. 1993.
DeCrow, Karen. "Name rape victims; end sexist stereotyping" USA Today. 23 January 1992.
Estrich, Susan. "Why put rape victims under the spotlight?" The New York Times. 1991
"Ethics in Journalism, SPJ Code of Ethics," Society of Professional Journalists. July 2001,
http://www.spj.org/ethics/code.htm (July 2001).
Gartner, Michael. "Naming the victim," Columbia Journalism Review. July/August 1991.
http://www.cjr.org/year/91/4/victim.asp (July 2001).
Gay, Charles, "Covering sex crimes," The Shelton-Mason County Journal, special edition,
1986.
Gay, Charles, managing editor of The Shelton-Mason County Journal. An interview, 26 July
2001.
Hanlon, Sean "Our day in court, Mason County rape reports defy experts' opinions," The
Shelton-Mason County Journal, 3 December 1992
Harwood, Richard. "Public likes theory of free press, not practice, Poll indicates that although
'free speech' and 'free press' are concepts Americans believe in, they reject those rights in
specific examples and favor licensing in some form." American Society of Newspaper
Editors. http://www.asne.org/kiosk/editor/98.april/harwoodl.htm (July 2001).
Haws, Dick, Melody, Ramsey. "The Winston-Salem Journal and the Identification of Sexual
Assault Victims," Newspaper Research Journal 17, no. 3/4 (1997):
Johnson, Michelle. "How Identifying Rape Victim Affects Readers' Perceptions." Newspaper
Research Journal 20, no. 2 (1999).
---. "Protecting Child Sex-Crime Victims: How Public Opinion and Political
Expediency Threaten Civil Liberties." Seattle University Law Review 20 (1997).
Kovach, Bill, Rosenstiel, Tom. "Are watchdogs an endangered species?" Columbia
Journalism Review, March 2001, www.cjr.org/year/01/3/rosenstiel.asp (July 2001).
Overholser, Geneva. "Why Hide Rapes?" The New York Times, 11 July 1989, sec. A.
---, Means, Marianne, "Media must be more sensitive to rape victim,"
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 22 April 1991.
Paterno, Susan. "I Can Explain." American Journalism Review. July/August 1998.
(August 2001).
Patterson, Philip, Wilkins, Lee. Media Ethics, Issues & Cases. McGraw-Hill, 1998
Solomon, Robert. Ethics, A Brief Introduction. McGraw-Hill, 1984.
Thomason, Tommy, LaRocque, Paul, Thomas, Maggie. "Editors still reluctant to name rape
victims." Newspaper Research Journal 16, no 3 (1995).
[1] Thomason, Tommy, LaRocque, Paul, Thomas, Maggie. "Editors still reluctant to name rape victims." Newspaper Research Journal 16, no 3 (1995): 42-51. Haws, Dick, Melody, Ramsey. "The Winston-Salem Journal and the Identification of Sexual Assault Victims," Newspaper Research Journal 17, no. 3/4 (1997): 98-105.
[2] Johnson, Michelle. "How Identifying Rape Victim Affects Readers' Perceptions." Newspaper Research Journal 20, no. 2 (1999): 64-81.
[3] Johnson, 2.
[4] Brooks, Kathleen, Begley, Kathleen. "Rape in Print-Victim may twice relive a rape: In the courts and in the newspaper," Seattle Times, 25 June 1985.
[5] Thomason, LaRocque, Thomas. 42-51.
[6] Patterson, Philip, Wilkins, Lee. Media Ethics, Issues & Cases. McGraw-Hill, 1998
[7] Brinton, Crane. A History of Western Morals. Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1959. p 79-81.
[8] Solomon, Robert. Ethics, A Brief Introduction. McGraw-Hill, 1984. p. 83.
[9] Patterson, Wilkins. 9.
[10] Solomon. 127-129.
[11] Beccaria, Cesare, Paolucci, Henry (translator). On Crimes and Punishments. 1764.
[12] Patterson, Wilkins. 12.
[13] Patterson, Wilkins. 14.
[14] Christians, Clifford, Kim Rotzoll, and Mark Fackler. Good News: Social ethics and the press. Oxford University Press. 1993. p.14.
[15] Patterson, Wilkins. 15.
[16] Gay, Charles, "Covering sex crimes," The Shelton-Mason County Journal, special edition, 1986.
[17] Gay, Charles, managing editor of The Shelton-Mason County Journal. An interview, 26 July 2001.
[18] "Ethics in Journalism, SPJ Code of Ethics," Society of Professional Journalists. July 2001, http://www.spj.org/ethics/code.htm (July 2001).
[19] Thomason, LaRocque, Thomas, 44.
[20] Thomason, LaRocque, Thomas, 44-45.
[21] Gay, interview, 26 July 2001. "Journal testimony at committee hearing." Shelton-Mason County Journal.
[22] DeCrow, Karen. "Name rape victims; end sexist stereotyping" USA Today. 23 January 1992, page 4.
[23] Overholser, Geneva. "Why Hide Rapes?" The New York Times, 11 July 1989, sec. A.
[24] Overholser, 19.
[25] Overholser, 19. Means, Marianne, "Media must be more sensitive to rape victim," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 22 April 1991.
[26] Overholser, 19.
[27] Estrich, Susan. "Why put rape victims under the spotlight?" The New York Times. 1991
[28] Gay, interview, 26 July 2001
[29] Charles Gay to Richard Riski, letter, 16 July 2001.
[30] Thomason, LaRocque, Thomas, 47-50.
[31] Johnson, Michelle. "Protecting Child Sex-Crime Victims: How Public Opinion and Political Expediency Threaten Civil Liberties." Seattle University Law Review 20 (1997): 1-12.
[32] Harwood, Richard. "Public likes theory of free press, not practice, Poll indicates that although 'free speech' and 'free press' are concepts Americans believe in, they reject those rights in specific examples and favor licensing in some form." American Society of Newspaper Editors. http://www.asne.org/kiosk/editor/98.april/harwoodl.htm (July 2001).
[33] "Rape in America: A Report to the Nation," Arlington, Virginia. National Victim Center. 1992, p10. Thomason, LaRocque, Thomas. 42-51. Haws, Dick, Ramsey, Melody. "The Winston-Salem Journal and the Identification of Sexual Assault Victims," Newspaper Research Journal 17 no. 3/4 (1997): 98-105.
[34] Haws, Ramsey. 99.
[35] Haws, Ramsey. 100.
[36] Haws, Ramsey. 100.
[37] Johnson. Newspaper Research Journal 20, no. 2 (1999): 65.
[38] Hanlon, Sean "Our day in court, Mason County rape reports defy experts' opinions," The Shelton-Mason County Journal, 3 December 1992
[39] Johnson, Michelle. Seattle University Law Review 20 (1997): 4-7.
[40] Charles Gay to Richard Riski, letter, 13 July 2001.
[41] Hanlon, Sean. 1992.
[42] Haws, Ramsey. "The Winston-Salem Journal and the Identification of Sexual Assault Victims," Newspaper Research Journal 17 no. 3/4 (1997): p. 102.
[43] Gartner, Michael. "Naming the victim," Columbia Journalism Review. July/August 1991. http://www.cjr.org/year/91/4/victim.asp (July 2001).
[44] Patterson, Wilkins, Media Ethics, Issues & Cases. McGraw-Hill, 1998. p. 3-6.
[45] Gay, letter, 13 July 2001.
[46] Black, Jay. "Rethinking the naming of sex crime victims, "Newspaper Research Journal 16, no. 3 (1995): 97-112
[47] Paterno, Susan. "I Can Explain." American Journalism Review. July/August 1998. (August 2001).
[48] Patterson, Wilkins, p98-102.
[49] Kovach, Bill, Rosenstiel, Tom. "Are watchdogs an endangered species?" Columbia Journalism Review March 2001, www.cjr.org/year/01/3/rosenstiel.asp (July 2001).
[50] Johnson. Seattle University Law Review 20 (1997): 4
[51] King, Maxwell. Philadelphia Inquirer's 1994 revised policy on sex crime coverage, quoted in Black, Jay. "Rethinking the naming of sex crime victims, " Newspaper Research Journal 16, no. 3 (1995): 108-109
[52] King. P 109.
[53] Johnson. Newspaper Research Journal 20, no. 2 (1999): 64-73.